[Edu-sig] a non-rhetorical question

[kirby urner]

> I also like the string library for certain pedagogical reasons, but I don't
> think the Templates are compelling when you can do essentially the same thing
> with string formatting. Is the $ notation that much of a "win?"
>
> --John
>

Yeah I've asked myself the same question.

It's a little less syntax, plus I just like talking about this
"Template object" as a "thing".

I compare it to the legal concept of "boilerplate" and all the
fill-in-the-blanks stuff they get to do in school (kids are used
to boilerplates -- what most tests are no? -- certainly we
adults face templates a lot, try to squeeze into 'em).

Template = Form.  Backend = database (more like what
goes in the dictionary -- used to populate the fields/columns
as rows/records).

I talk a lot about real world stuff like that.  The lesson is a
"cave painting" i.e. a primitive yet faithful rendition of something
more complicated (perhaps unnecessarily complicated for
our purposes).

But I could see switching to %(dict_key)s syntax somewhere
along the way.  I like Template though and don't think the
string module should go away.  Rather it should fill with non-
redundant basic utilities (like Template).

Kirby